Bob Zaltsberg wrote:

John:

 

You've provided a huge amount of information.

 

I would be willing to meet sometime next week to discuss these points, if that works for you. Wednesday afternoon and Thursday afternoon are pretty good for me right now. What's best for you with your work schedule?

 

Bob Z

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Smith [mailto:countus@i69tour.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:51 AM
To: Bob Zaltsberg; countus@i69tour.org
Subject: Re: [BULK] Hurt, Damaged and Angered by H-T Opinion

Bob,

    Here are  answers to your questions.  As COUNT US! director, "we" is often used rather than "I".

This section was already sent:

John Smith wrote:

Bob,

    I have much to disagree with you about your line of reasoning and believe that I can refute what you have presented here with documentation of your papers knowledge, including photographic and public record comments. 

    Starting at 1 PM last night when I found your e-mail in the Spam filter, I have tried to make a clear statement.   Now I am late opening my shop.   I need more time.

    Please grant me some time at this moment of family crisis as my 89 year old mother in law is in intensive care because of a car crash at the Clarksville I-65 intersection.  The irony of this has just hit me.  A television station in Louisville challenged INDOT about the deadly design of this intersection the day after my mother in law and sister in laws accident.  I believe section 5 consultants are making similar dangerous design mistakes here right now for political and economic reasons.

Please consider these thought until we can meet:

• You are very undervaluing the importance of the frontage lanes approved.  These are capacity, in fact because of speed/spacing, more capacity than the interstate's per lane per moment.  Removal from the plan is important to our community.  I have made this an issue that would have been missed.
  

• "I can't say that misinformation or disinformation has never been used to that end."  This is vague.  Are you attributing this to me or not?

• I actually prefer for many reasons the FEIS design 8+4=12 lanes to the Consultants newer plans if I-69 ever happens.  I find their proposed plans far worse for our community.  Scary is not a word I used or eyesore, you are guilty of fallacy of logic, "begging the question".  (Just on the bicycle side of things, think of the crossing ease and expense of underpasses vs overpasses.)

John Smith
Bikesmiths/ COUNT US!

This is New:

Bob Zaltsberg wrote:

John:

I believe you are trying to offer accurate information on your Web site. I
do not believe you are purposely trying to mislead anyone.

That said, I have spent some time going over information on the site and I
need some clarification. Please understand I ask all these questions in good
faith.

First, the PDF I looked at appears to be the document that includes all five
options discussed before the choice of the 3C route was made. Right?

The EIS does include all the facts brought together over the course of the study, in fact all the facts remain part of all of the single Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that is being assembled through Tier 2 to a second Record of Decision and beyond.   The Tiering process is a convenience allowed DOTs, but not preferred by Federal Highway Administration.  The legal process is a single EIS.

The printed volumes submitted to the FHWA in requesting the Record of Decision, The Tier 1 FEIS (Appendix E) includes all of the not selected alternatives, but did drop all of the Alternative 3 cross sections other than 3C.  The FEIS Appendix E  references the DEIS Cross Sections that I have provided.

Just as in the approval of a dissertation proposal, the study after Tier 1 FEIS ROD approval still has the responsibility to remain consistent through the final conclusions.  That is what is most troubling about the removal of road capacity by the section 5 consultants.

COUNT US! has requested a legal response to this question and the H-T should take note and understand the importance.  The capacity drawn in the Tier 1 cross sections is what would be required if the performance document was not "pumped up" by falsely claimed increased traffic. 

If the area were to have an eight lane interstate, the need for North / South local traffic lanes seems obvious to us.   The consultants are now lowering the expected traffic, a classic tactic of "bait and switch".

As a small section of my official three minute comments at the Martinsville (Section 5 meeting)  as I pointed at the just then revealed proposed Section 5 consultants (Michael Baker Inc.) cross section:

"They have eliminated the frontage roads.  Tell us how that happens.  How does that work?"

Earlier at this July 20th section 5 meeting,  before official public comment, we did present the Tier 1 FEIS cross section images. We held them up to, and  in comparison to, the just released section 5 proposals at this meeting before a large group of citizens in attendance and challenged the Section 5 Consultant on many points of their reduced capacity design. 

Is it correct that the specifics of the highway - where ever it was to end
up - was to be determined after public meetings and discussion about all
sorts of details?

Details (Environmental Impact Study) assumes consistency, truth, facts and calculations that logically follow.

Many times the various consultants have relied on the Record of Decision to say "these things can not be changed", "that was decided in Tier 1 with the ROD".    Now, they want to have it both ways.  The are changing important details and even the underlying numbers of the initial Tier 1 of the study.

The predicted volume of traffic and the "need" to reduce congestion determines the number of lanes and type of infrastructure that can do the job in the space defined.   The required road surface from traffic estimates is one of those consistencies that they must live up to, or revise Tier 1 performance, purpose and need calculations.

Now we are told, the reduced road capacity here is justified by "new numbers".   We where told this by the section 5 consultants in a August 2nd BBC/ Section 5 (Michael Baker Inc) consultants meeting, when we  challenged  their ability to remove these frontage lanes.

On Monday August 22, Janice Osadczuk of INDOT's environmental division confirmed that new traffic numbers are being developed and used by Section 5/ Michael Baker Inc. consultants.   She advised that we should officially request those numbers from Michael Baker Inc.   Section 4 consultants told Thomas Tokarski last week that Bernardin Lochmueller and Associates, the overall I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis consulting firm is developing the revised traffic numbers.

Those "new numbers", have to be put back into all the other equations of purpose, need, performance, economics, safety, congestion and on and on.   As in any study, if the founding numbers are changed, all calculations based on the erred numbers must be recalculated.  

This is about changing details and making up the facts to fit the need of the day.  "Bait and Switch" is the way Thomas Tokarski explains it.    One set of numbers was estimated for "the need to build", now it is "the need to make it more affordable".  The estimated volume of traffic that will come is now apparently being estimated lower. 

Your 12-lane interstate description from the documents uses pull-off lanes
and frontage roads, right? The most traffic lanes I could find in the
documents was 8. Am I right on that?

Regarding "pull-off lanes", No, absolutely not.  Look at all of the maps, no turn off lanes are drawn on any of the cross sections.   This is simply eight lane interstate and four local travel lanes equals twelve lanes,  then plus exit lanes and ramps.   In three dimensions as in the FEIS, these would be stacked.

See:  http://www.i69tour.org/3cmonroe.html
For a closer view of Bloomington & Martinsville: http://www.assmotax.org/I69/Section%20I_S.jpg
Count here the lanes, 8 twelve foot raised interstate lanes and 4 twelve-foot frontage lanes. 

The reason for the raised interstate was so that the turn off lanes could come off over the frontage roads while maintaining diamond rather than loop exits.  The foot print for all of this is only 90 feet wider than existing SR 37.  (See the table on the "/3cmonroe" link above.)   Raising the roadway would preserve many of the existing businesses. Preserving stop lights on the off ramps would be required, cloverleaf ingress/ egress would have been safer and more efficient but more land intense. 

The future ability to clear these stop lighted crossing points should be carefully questioned now!   Section 5 consultants',  Michael Baker Inc., new proposed plans makes congestion and safety worse than the FEIS proposed 12 lanes.   The new Baker plan as shown would result in frequent backups on to the high speed interstate as already happens at times on SR 37.  For these reasons, the Section 5 plans are perhaps unusable even if they are taken through the current study process. 

If built, surely our local government would have to fund similar capacity lost by the removal of the frontage roads.  East: Adams Street/ Patterson is the first North/ South continuous through street otherwise and Curry Pike/ Leonard Springs to the  West.  This proposed plan would render navigating Bloomington's west side an unacceptable mess. 

While claiming "new numbers", the consultants have chosen to preserve the number of interstate lanes (4 per side) while eliminating our frontage roads.   Since  three interstate lanes per side is the minimum from Bloomington to Indianapolis, four  Interstate lanes per side would likely be justified, but they are moving the through traffic onto the center two lanes and forcing local traffic to  two walled away outer lanes at interstate speeds.  That is , they are proposing 2 through lanes and 2 interstate lanes with access to exit lanes.

Michael Baker Inc. thus far has ignored details of new problems for our community from fewer exits, growth, traffic backups/ congestion, effects on local businesses of the wider highway foot print, and drainage/ run off from reduction of permeable surface area.  

Too, we mention here only briefly the toll issue:  Because the study consulting firms contracts where granted pre Mitch Daniels' toll road/ privatization proposals, they immediately scoff at any mention of a toll or privately owned infrastructure that is now taking shape.   Their plans are not for a toll or privately held  interstate, period.

If I understand you correctly, one of your key points is that you are showing
and talking about what is on the documents at this time. Wendy Vachet is
talking about how she believes the road should end up. You're saying they
are planning a 12-lane urban interstate, which is the only thing down on
paper. She's saying what's on paper will change.

We hope you are by now understanding:

• Since the July 20th section 5 new Cross Sections were unveiled, we are challenging the consistency of the study. 
  
• Before July 20th, the 8+4 lane raised urban interstate was the only plan known to exist.   That was the INFORMATION that we were presenting frequently and widely in as much detail as allowed for a year.  It was the only plan at time that we wrote  the last letter published by your newspaper.
  
• We are now visualizing both the old and the new proposed infrastructures and making comment on what can be predicted in either case.  Really Bob, all we are trying to do is help people "see" what is being planned for our community.  It is a strategy to prevent boondoggle I-69 by accurately unveiling the details and facts.
  

Regarding the Study consultants, We do not personalize the Section 5 consulting firm as a single person as you do.   Bloomington has many opportunities to shape the community, our home.  It is our right and perhaps our duty.

The paid Section 5 consultants are involved for money reasons only:

Michael Baker Corporation
Airside Business Park
100 Airside Drive
Moon Township, PA 15108
(412) 269-6300 or (800) MIBAKER
FAX (412) 375-3980

As far more than  one hundred thousand hoosiers are ignored in comments opposed to new terrain I-69, the recent new comers to the project, the consultants of DLZ and Michael Baker are given complete credibility, "There. Now you have it."  (quoting your "Opinion")

I can see how your letter to the editor is accurate: "The required public
meeting regarding 12-lane "raised urban freeway," I-69, planned for
Bloomington will be held in Martinsville, just as the Greene County meeting
was held in Bloomington last month." I do think for the layman - the people
who don't follow this issue nearly as closely as you do - it implies 12
traffic lanes.

There are 12 traffic lanes.  We don't understand your lack of respect for frontage roads as "traffic lanes".  They are very important!  We think, more important to Bloomington than the interstate.

Your limit of 250 words and INDOT's limit of 2 minutes do require hours of work on our part to be accurate, while conveying truthfully important information (NOT DISINFORMATION!).   When given time and space, we have at every opportunity brought forth the most clear picture of facts that we can with the greatest amount of documentation possible.  In fact we would claim that the internet has taken this documentation to previously impossible levels with mid text direct links to official documents of public record. 

When  one is only allowed 2 minutes or 250 words, we must  speak accurately in broad truths.  This is the fault of the process as much or more than the speaker/writer. 

Our goal is truth, not fear.  We don't believe I-69 can overcome the light of "truth".  Frankly, the H-T is far more guilty of misinformation, too little or no information and disinformation.   The Herald Times motive might be to "not frighten" but the outcome will far worse and the process is harmed by a less informed community.

Right now, I'm thinking about writing a column about your concerns about the
editorial - and about your motivation for making InDOT's own data available
on your Web site.  But unless I'm  missing something, I don't see how we can
write a correction about the opinion that ran in the newspaper.

What ever Bob,  circle your wagons, but please break your silence.   Better late than never.

The opinion said we believed some misconceptions were spreading (12 traffic
lanes, for instance). We said "In some cases, we think it's honest
misinformation. In other cases, we have to wonder whether it may rise to the
level of disinformation intended to mislead and frighten people." This was a
legitimate opinion, not a fact that can be corrected. I can say that you
don't intend to mislead and frighten people. I can't say that misinformation
or disinformation has never been used to that end.

Your "fear" is your fear, not ours.  We can imagine this without fear.  Our reasons for presentation of these specifics of the FEIS is only because we believe I-69 can not be supported widely if the facts are known. 

As we were eating at the Kingfish in Jeffersonville Indiana this weekend, we noticed a long span of raised interstate on concrete stilts in Louisville.  Looking under and beyond I-64, we  imagined the opportunity for a more pedestrian friendly urban development of west side Bloomington with more flat crossing points of SR37 as I-69 in Bloomington, rather than fewer. 

We have witnessed this often in Japan, complete with curved sound barrier walls around the interstate that leave opening on top only for light to enter.  The raise interstate approved by the Tier 1 FEIS/ ROD proposal so cheerfully waved good-bye by the H-T almost seem like a lost opportunity, when compared to the Michael Baker Inc, "bean-counter" cross section designs. 

Lets meet for say an hour and imagine the proposals to the best of our abilities together.

Discussing the issue in a column would be the best way to bring this up
again.
 
I'd appreciate your thoughts.

We appreciate that you are willing to consider this, and we only wish for expanded clarity of understanding in the community about proposed I-69. 

John Smith
Bikesmiths/ COUNT US!
(812) 327-6142 Cell
(812) 825-2322 Home
(812) 339-9970 Work



******************************

Prior exchanges

Regards,

Bob Z


-----Original Message-----
From: John Smith [mailto:countus@i69tour.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Kurt VanderDussen; zaltsberg@heraldt.com; wfiu@indiana.edu; Carney,
Charles L
Subject: [BULK] Hurt, Damaged and Angered by H-T Opinon
Importance: Low


Kurt VanderDussen,

    Sunday's Bloomington Herald Times Editorial Opinion (follows) was 
unbelievable.  I hope you had nothing to do with it.

I am hurt and angered by claims of "misinformation" that I am presenting:

http://www.i69tour.org/3cmonroe.html

I have tried for 54 weeks to get the official INDOT/ FHWA cross section 
data to the public as directly and accurately as possible.


Regarding the H-T quote:

  

"...all sorts of stuff in it. For the stretch through Bloomington
classified as "urban," she said, the appendix included a description..."
    

 The direct link  connection to INDOT/ FHWA approved graphs and highway 
cross sections (pdf) that I share with the community regarding the US 
Federal Highway Record of Decision for I-69 3C (Corridor 18, section 3, 
3C, section 5) is more than "a description" and to call it that is 
misinformation!  

 Regarding:

  

"disinformation intended to mislead and frighten people"
    

I believe it is far more true that this H-T Opinion "is disinformation 
intended to mislead and frighten people" of me.


As one who regarding this topic has written letters to the editor (see: 
Aug, 9,'05), was the only speaker regarding this topic at the Section 5 
meeting and who has called WGCL more than once, I feel my reputation has 
been damaged in the Community by this branding.  This seems   
particularly true in the Bicycle community where I have tried to share 
this information more than once with persons only mildly interested.   I 
am very afraid that those who accept what they read in your paper as 
truthful will no longer feel good doing business with me.  Was this 
intended?

If the level of public discussion I have engaged in, providing direct 
access to Federally approved plans for our county is disallowed and 
named "misinformation", and "disinformation intended to mislead and 
frighten people",  certainly free speech, public opinion and free access 
to public information and process are of no use.

Why is the Bloomington H-T so happy to have lost the 4 frontage lanes 
that were approved in the Record of Decision.  Can anyone over there 
possibly imagine the difficulty of accessing sections of Bloomington 
near 37 that would lose exits.  Think of the lack of continuous North/ 
South streets near 37 on either side.  What would be the cost to 
Bloomington and Monroe Taxpayers for this loss of Federally subsidized 
infrastructure shown needed in the Record of Decision.  What traffic 
congestion never before experienced would necessitate major local 
expense and inconveniences?

If persons are frightend by official INDOT and FHWA documents, can I be 
blamed?    In what way are the "leanings" of the Section 5 consultants 
more valid?

The Consultants of Section 5 claimed in an August 2nd, 2005 meeting with 
the Bloomington Bicycle Club that removing the frontage roads (4 of the 
12 lanes approved) was allowed by new numbers that show that we don't 
need that much capacity, yet I'll bet you a buck that you will never get 
them to admit that was said and certainly they won't  provide access to 
these lowered expectations for I-69 use if they in fact exist.

Their "leanings" are not official and must go through BLA, INDOT, Draft 
EIS Tier 2, comments, BLA, INDOT Final EIS tier 2 , more comments BLA/ 
INDOT again  and then Federal Highway Administration Tier 2 Record of 
Decision before they reach the level of validity of what I have 
presented.  And this assumes that Mitch Daniels will not make major 
changes in the funding with a toll road proposal.

Could it not be said that the consultants are "bean counters" trying to 
short change our community leaving us with a local road congestion 
problem worse than we currently have?

Frankly, I am not sure which is worse, a raised road or no frontage 
roads, but I am certain that losing those frontage roads is not 
something that should be seen as good news if SR37 becomes a limited 
access interstate.  Some very small  thinking is going on over there in 
your work place.  I would like to meet my accusers face to face.

Like the H-T ("This did not sound right to us." ), it took me a long 
time to understand why I-69 here was designed/approved as an Elevated 
Urban Freeway Typical Section I, but there is a reasonable explanation 
if The Bloomington H-T would give me a chance to defend my sharing of 
public documents, I can explain.  You might ask yourself why all the 
other sections of I-69 look the way you would expect and only 
Bloomington and Martinsville don't "sound right".


Thank you for the read of my justily angered reaction, I look forward to 
your comments and hope you are not offended that  by cc, I have informed 
others in the media community of what I consider to be unfair treatment 
in this instance.

John Smith
Bikesmiths/ COUNT US!
A 30 year Bloomington merchant concerned about my community acting in 
the most responsible way I can imagine.

************
http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/htoservices/hto-contact.php
Misconceptions mark Ind. 37-to-I-69 remark
Opinion

August 14, 2005

Tools:  <javascript:sto_win('/htoservices/htosend.php');> | 
<http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/htocode/filemanager.php?data=TWlzY29uY2Vwd
GlvbnMgbWFyayBJbmQuIDM3LXRvLUktNjkgcmVtYXJrfjExMjQwMjA2NjR%2BL3N0b3JpZXMvMjA
wNS8wOC8xNC9kaWdpdGFsY2l0eS4wODE0LVNILUExNF9SU1oyOTA4My5zdG8%3D> 
| 
<http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/08/14/digitalcity.0814-SH-A14
_RSZ29083.sto?printf=1>

In the wake of the public hearing on the Section 5 section on Interstate 
69 from Victor Pike north through Bloomington to Martinsville, some 
misconceptions seem to be spreading.

In some cases, we think it's honest misinformation. In other cases, we 
have to wonder whether it may rise to the level of disinformation 
intended to mislead and frighten people.

We've heard it expressed both in a claim in a letter to the editor and 
in callers on WGCL's "Afternoon Edition" call-in talk show. It goes like 
this:

I-69 through Bloomington is going to be an elevated highway with 12 
traffic lanes. Or its variant: I-69 through Bloomington is going to be 
12 lanes wide, with eight travel lanes bordered by two lanes for local 
traffic on each side.

This did not sound right to us. So we consulted Wendy Vachet, the 
manager of the planning process for the Section 5 I-69 project office in 
Bloomington's One City Center.

Vachet has heard the same thing, repeatedly. And to get swiftly to the 
point, she said it is false. But she thinks she knows what's causing it.

When I-69 was in the "Tier 1" planning stage to select the initial 
2,000-foot-wide corridor, the report for that includes an appendix with 
all sorts of stuff in it. For the stretch through Bloomington classified 
as "urban," she said, the appendix included a description for a 
potential 12-traffic-lane elevated highway. But she stressed that is not 
required and would be overbuilding on a massive scale.


Now, the Indiana Department of Transportation, she said, does not want 
to "underbuild" the highway, and if anything, prefers to "overbuild" it 
for the sake of the future.

In terms of what that means, she said what definitely is planned is that 
rural portions will have three 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each 
direction. There also will be 12-foot shoulders on both the highway edge 
and the median edge, with a median down the center. That means the 
pavement width on each side would be 60 feet, or 120 feet total.

In terms of the urban area through Bloomington, she said her office is 
leaning toward two options.

. Have two 12-foot through-traffic lanes and two local-traffic lanes in 
each direction. Both the travel lanes and the local lanes would have a 
12-foot shoulder on each side, with a barrier dividing the local and 
travel lanes.

. Have four travel lanes in each direction with a 12-foot shoulder on 
each side, or 12 lanes of pavement, eight for traffic and four for 
pull-offs.

In either case, she said the existing overpasses for West Third St. 
(Ind. 48) and West Second Street (Ind. 45) will have to be rebuilt. So 
will the Indiana Rail Road overpass between them. And the current 
channel through which Ind. 37 now runs will need at least some widening.

But no, there will not be an elevated eyesore of a highway with 12 
traffic-moving lanes, she said.

There. Now you have it.

Herald-Times